Vick's $10,000 Fingers

Michael Vick Fined $10,000 for Gesture
29 Nov

Michael Vick has been fined $10,000 by the NFL for an obscene hand gesture toward fans following last week's loss to New Orleans. The fine was confirmed Wednesday by Reggie Roberts, the Falcons' vice president for communications.

Wait a minute--a pro athelete, and a really big-name one at that actually showing contempt for a crowd, or for individual fans? What? It has come down to this? For shame, for shame.

But seriously, ten G's for the finger (or here, more correctly, double fingers)? It's not really infringement of his First Amendment freedoms, because it's a condition of employment in the NFL. That kind of behavior is not allowed, so sure, take the hit and shrug it off. After all, $10,000 is less money than he makes in an equivalent minute of actual game time. That's walking around money for a guy like this.

Vick rushed for 166 yards in the 31-13 loss, just 7 yards short of his own NL record for a quarterback in a game. But that didn't make up for a dismal performance by the Falcons, who were booed loudly following their fourth straight loss and he showed his unhappiness by making the gesture with both hands.

Vick said he heard an especially disturbing insult from a male fan as he walked off the Georgia Dome field.

Yeah, so what? I learned to ignore verbal insults by the time I was a sophomore in high school. And since that was close to 30 years ago, I've been called a lot of really nasty things since then, and they really don't seem to bother me. More than anything, they actually entertain me, the depths to which the shallow, ignorant, and more than anything impotent idiots will sink--and quickly too--when they think they have something vital to say. I'm smarter than that, a lot smarter than that, and I know it. I'm better than that, and I don't care what they say about my mother, my kids, me, anything, it really doesn't matter a bit. To react to that kind of childish taunting takes me down to where they are, and I'm better than that.

Also, since Vick makes an obscene amount of money a year to play professional sports, can't he take some solace in the fact that he could buy and sell the unidentified name-calling yabbo for a fraction of his per-game income? Couldn't Vick just stop in the tunnel, give the guy a long, hard look in the eye, smile knowingly and just move on? Isn't that the most punishing thing you can do to a needy bully, just ignore them? That's always worked for me, and usually angers them even more, which is the true and immediate indication that you've won.

"He just said certain things I won't say in front of this camera," Vick said at a post-game news conference. "It was very inappropriate. I was down, upset, frustrated. I just did one thing I've never done through all the games I've ever lost, no matter how frustrated I've been after a game. I don't know where it came from, but the people who know me know that's not me and that's not my character."

But it is your character. You heard the criticism, took it on board, thought of what to do about it, thought of the gesture, and then you chose to do it. It may have been in haste, but it was you who reacted to the provocation you were given. Regardless of circumstances, your words and actions are who you are--ask the dumbass frat boys in "Borat" and Mel Gibson about his views on Jews--and this action now defines you. There is no way to duck it, no matter how deftly and arguably eloquently you describe the situation in which it took place.

I also notice here that there is no apology. There's the admission of guilt, tinged with the hollow excuse. There are the mitigating circumstances, the explanation of context and past behavior, which are both very convincing and well presented. It's the perfect lead-in to a sincere and meaningful apology, but we don't get that satisfaction. I take that to mean, Michael, that you aren't sorry for the action. That's okay, if that's the statement you wish to make. That is most definitely one way of taking responsibility for your words and actions, something that Charles Barkley was always the absolute king of doing, whether he was being politically correct or not. I don't have a problem with speaking directly, even if it's unpleasant and goes against what's expected. But don't tell us in the same breath that this is not who you are; that's just a lie.

Murder Charges Against Baby-Microwaving Mom

Police Say Mother Microwaved Her Baby
28 Nov
Dayton, Ohio

A mother was arrested on suspicion of murdering her newborn daughter by putting the baby in a microwave oven. China Arnold, 26, was jailed Monday on a charge of aggravated murder, more than a year after she brought her dead month-old baby to a hospital.

What in the holy living fuck? What sort of deranged, psychotic, misanthropic animal would put a baby in a microwave?

"We have reason to believe, and we have some forensic evidence that is consistent with our belief, that a microwave oven was used in this death," said Ken Betz, director of the Montgomery County coroner's office. He said the evidence included high-heat internal injuries and the absence of external burn marks on the baby, Paris Talley.

Arnold was arrested soon after the baby's death in August 2005, then was released while authorities investigated further. Betz said the case was difficult because "there is not a lot of scientific research and data on the effect of microwaves on human beings."

The death was ruled a homicide caused by hyperthermia, or high body temperature. The absence of external burns ruled out an open flame, scalding water or a heating pad as the cause, Betz said.

Arnold's lawyer, Jon Paul Rion, said his client had nothing to do with her child's death and was stunned when investigators told her that a microwave might have been involved.

"China--as a mother and a person--was horrified that such an act could occur," Rion said.

The night before the baby was taken to the hospital, Arnold and the child's father went out for a short time and left Paris with a baby sitter, Rion said. The mother didn't sense anything out of the ordinary until the next morning, when the child was found unconscious, Rion said.

Where was Mom? Was Mom at home with the child, the place where she should be? Would this have happened if Mom had been with the baby? Is she blaming this on the babysitter? I note that this article does not indicate any babysitter or other party is under investigation or has been charged.

Arnold has three other children.

In 2000, a Virginia woman was sentenced to five years in prison for killing her month-old son in a microwave oven. Elizabeth Renee Otte claimed she had no memory of cramming her son in the microwave and turning on the appliance in 1999. Experts said that Otte suffered from epilepsy and that her seizures were followed by blackouts.

If it's proven that Arnold did this, then the one and only option is a sentence of death. Now, true justice would be a death sentence replicating the circumstances of the death of the murdered child. Now that's punishment, the anticipation and building fear that would come to the condemned murderer, knowing that there would be no gradual sleep of lethal injection, no instantaneous death of hanging, but a seeminly interminable building of heat and indescribable pain to pass through before what would be regarded as the blessed relief of death. Now that would be justice, and although I know this will never happen, it's always something we can hope for.

Dumbass Grandstanding Protester Gets More Than He Bargained For

And here's another from the anti-Bush Cabal idiot slushpile:
---------------------------------------
Maine Activist Cited for Bin Laden Stunt
15 Nov 06

A Portland, Maine Democratic activist who was arrested after he was spotted on a highway overpass dressed as Osama bin Laden on Halloween faces additional charges for the stunt. Tom Connolly was charged Wednesday with terrorizing and reckless conduct, in addition to the original charge of criminal threatening, prosecutor Stephanie Anderson said. All three charges are misdemeanors.

Terrorizing? Reckless conduct? Yeah, those probably are valid, given that he was doing all of this on a highway overpass. But criminal threatening? How is it that he conveyed a criminal threat? Once again, the outraged and intolerant general public misplaces its anger. We have yet to find, fix, and/or kill UBL (who's been dead, blown to dust in Tora Bora back in October of 2001, by the way), so we'll lash out at any possible vestige of him, be it UBL toilet paper, shooting targets, or a petty local self-aggrandizing politician wannabe who doesn't think through his actions and their likely and possible consequences.

"Halloween or not, in this day and age you do not get to dress as an international terrorist and wave what appears to be an AK-47 at rush hour traffic," Anderson said.

What is someone did that in a group, where the others were dressed as flappers, King Kong, Elvis, Steven Hawking, maybe even Fred Sanford? Would that have brought all of the charges? Or is it that he was alone? Again, it's about "this day and age," which means that, just like the Japanese got the drop on us in '41 and we as a collective national entity distrusted and despised them, every single one of them for years afterwards, now it's hatred of the UBLs, and those that think and act like him. Yeah, he's a bad, bad guy, and I'd stick him with a knife myself if given the chance, but at the same time, how is that UBL appears on a Maine traffic overpass on Halloween night? Doesn't anyone have any common sense? Doesn't anyone have a sense of humor?

Police responded to calls from motorists on Interstate 295 about a man on an overpass wearing a white robe and carrying a fake assault rifle. The costume included a rubber mask, plastic dynamite and grenades, in addition to the toy assault rifle. Before he was arrested, Connolly walked toward officers as plastic grenades tumbled onto the ground, an officer said.

Did the motorists say he was carrying a fake assault rifle? Seems to be a bit of a giveaway, then. I'll bet the rest of costume was some really cheapo gunk, too, just like the overpriced plastic crap you get at Party Depot, the kind of stuff where it makes you itch, and smells funny, and the colors run on your skin. And folks thought he was a terrorist? Did the police buy into his terrorism ruse?

That being said, what kind of idiot would just walk toward a police office with any kind of semblance of a weapon of any kind? That's just suicidal, dude.

Anderson said Connolly created an "incredibly dangerous" situation for motorists, for police--and for himself. "He's lucky he didn't get shot," she said.

Yup, couldn't agree more. But also, the police can't even begin to look like they're soft on terrorism, soft on international threats, soft on Homeland Security, so anything that even looks like the Big Al-Qaida has to be confronted in a direct, manly and defiant way, and then dealt with ridiculously harshly, even if it's clear it's a dumbass pseudo-political attention hound looking for another picture in the local paper.

Connolly's lawyer, Daniel Knight, said Wednesday there was no mistaking Connolly for a terrorist on Halloween. "His protest involved a plastic squirt gun that was not used in any menacing manner whatsoever while Tom was in a costume on Halloween," Knight said.

Furthermore, he said, Connolly was holding a sign with a political statement about the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, which was defeated by voters Nov. 7. Police said at least one person who saw a sign held by Connolly thought it said "Taliban."

Yeah, both the words have a "t," "a," and "b" in them, but that's where it ends. Read the sign people. Using this logic, motorists could blame the highway department for not taking them to the airport when they mistakenly followed a sign for "Acropolis Restaurant." Somehow Connolly is to blame for holding up a non-threatening sign that had nothing to do with criminal threatening or terroristic activities? He's to blame for impersonating a terrorist because he was protesting--peacefully albeit stupidly--the US tax system?

Connolly, 49, a defense lawyer, made headlines when he divulged President Bush's drunken-driving arrest days before the 2000 election. During the Democratic Convention, Connolly passed out "W is for Wiener" buttons. He also has been known to don a George W. Bush mask and dance for passing motorists.

Interesting, why hasn't he been arrested and charged for these stunts? The only difference was the costume.

Anderson, a Republican, said Connolly probably would have been charged even if he was wearing a George Washington costume instead of an Osama bin Laden costume. The problem, she said, was that the gun looked real and that he pointed it at people.

Yeah, right. I guarantee that if he were weariing anything but a UBL/terrorist outfit, he would've been written off as another Halloween idiot. This is about destroying the effigy after all, even if it's not just clothes stuffed with rags and is a real person.

Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 364 days in jail, but a lengthy jail term was unlikely, Anderson said. A trial was scheduled for Dec. 19.

Big lecture from the judge on the proper forms and venues of dissent and protest, with a fine imposed to cover the police and emergency response costs. Maybe probation. And the idiot will get more public attention than he ever thought he would.

Mile High Club Hijinks=In-Flight Terrorism

Read this and tell me how the Patriot Act is being used by official, credentialed members of the US Security Establishment to make the Nation safer and more secure. Or maybe summamrize to your coffee klatch buddies how it's being used as a blunt instrument by whoever has the slightest, most tenuous connections to its provisions to intimidate and prohibit any activity some unnamed individual may find insulting, offensive, or distasteful.
------------------------------
Mid-Flight Sexual Play Lands US Couple Afoul of Anti-Terrorism Law
14 Nov 06

A couple's ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act, intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years. According to their indictment, Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell were allegedly snuggling and kissing inappropriately, "making other passengers uncomfortable," when a flight attendant asked them to stop.

Whoa, hold on there a second, since when it snuggling a kissing an illegal act? Since when is it illegal to make out with your girlfriend? So a passenger or two--or 37 for all I care--doesn't really like what they're seeing? My answer to that is TS, and mind your own goddamn business.

Now, the kicker comes when the outraged one or two or seven dozen, who won't do it themselves, find a pseudo-authority figure in the form of the flight attendent (FA) to intervene. If a flight attendant tells you to do something these days, if anything you'd better to listen to what you're being told. I'll give that much. But if a flight attendant told me to stop snuggling and kissing my wife, I'd politely ignore her and continue to do so. That's not within her bounds or authority, and I am not threatening the safety, security, or well-being of anyone else around me in doing what I'm doing. Disrupting their sensibilities? Yeah, maybe, but that's not my concern. If that's the issue, then I have the right to tell anyone anywhere what to do and what not to do, and that's just not allowed. If you don't like what you're hearing, stop listening and put on your cheapo airline headphones (at $7 for your 38-minute flight). And if you don't like what you're seeing, then don't look, thank you.

"Persing was observed nuzzling or kissing Sewell on the neck, and ... with his face pressed against Sewell's vaginal area. During these actions, Sewell was observed smiling," reads the indictment filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Okay, now the FBI has noted that they were nuzzling and kissing, on the neck, no less. Land o' Goshen! Git the feathers and a bucket of hot tar because two adults are expressing themselves. Jeezus Christ, how is it that this has become an issue?

Wait, "vaginal area?" What the hell is a "vaginal area?" Does he mean the entire Delta of Venus, the mons, the crotch, the entire area, or did randy Mr. Persing actually have his face pressed just to the area, maybe all of 3 or 4 inches square, truly, that is the opening of Ms. Sewell's delicate reproductive canal? Once again, the FBI--the folks who asked the Brisith novelist in his interrogation, "Just what kind of novels do you write, fiction or non-fiction?"--can't get the right words to describe what is going on. It's general, vague, and everyone maybe kind of gets the picture, or then again maybe not. When it comes down to court time, I think precision of language is going to be pretty important.

Now then, going down on your lady, even if both of you have your clothes on and you're just engaging in some pre-naked hijinks to get or keep your respective motors humming, is probably not a good idea in public. Yeah, that's taking the public display of affection a tad too far, and I don't have a problem with someone asking this to stop. I love a good bit of frottage as much as the next guy, Gawd knows that was my entire high school career, but not in an airplane with my closest neighbor right at my elbow, or all of 28" away across the aisle. Sorry, you two lovebirds, but that's a bit much. If you were that hot and ready, then the plane's restroom should've been your destination.

On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

Bad idea, Persing. Shoulda stopped the first time, and let it go. Then you were dumb enough to actually make an issue out of it. Pretty stupid to come up with a threat, any kind of threat, especially when you're doing something inappropriate. Yeah, the FA is in charge of what goes on in the cabin, the pilot's/captain's officially designated representative to the passengers, so his/her word is official. Bad idea to go against that one.

The comment was enough to have the couple, both in their early 40s, arrested when the plane reached its destination in Raleigh, North Carolina, and charged with obstructing a flight attendant and with criminal association.

Yeah, I could see this arrest and charge coming before I even read the paragraph. Of course they're going to hammer them with obstructing a flight attendant. That's the wonderful catch-all. And these two horndogs brought it on themselves.

But criminal association? What the hell is that about? Is it going to be the FBI lodging RICO charges against them for conspiracy to achieve orgasmic fulfillment aboard an interstate conveyance, or something just as ridiculous? Criminal associaton? Not even something predictable like lewd and lascivious conduct, which are the words I was expecting to read.

They have been placed under legal surveillance until their trial on February 5. If found guilty, they both could be sent to jail for up to 20 years.

The whole 20 years is unlikely, although since the feds are involved someone likely will make an example out of them, just to show that the USofA will not be intimated by terrorists, extremists, malcontents, or the stupidly boner-influenced. I would expect a plea bargain to a lesser charge, no jail time, a big fine, and lots of probation. And a permanent place on the no-fly list. I really hope Mr. Persing doesn't like to travel, or travel a great deal for work. I doubt his company is going to like the idea of funding rental cars and train tickets.

Persing's lawyer William Peregoy said his client was not feeling well when he placed his head on his companion's lap, and that he only threatened the flight attendant with reporting him to his superiors on landing.

And Ms. Sewell was smiling that unrestrained, blissful smile because she was so happy to be there to make him feel all better. Yeah, yeah, typical American "it's not my fault" refusal to take responsibility for one's actions. I expect Mr. Persing also in the next day or two will become an alcoholic, will be found to have been suffering from a previously unknown psychotic disorder based on his just-recovered memories of years of sexual abuse as a child, and also to have been in the throes of a dangerous and unpredictable drug interaction, as well as (insert your overtired legal excuse here). It's not his fault, really. He only snapped at the FA because in his horrible delirium he thought she was a demon because he's a devout Christian and only those with malicious intent to delivere the word of the Devil would treat such a humble and wonderful person in such a manner.
-------------------------------------------------
So what happens when I offend someone's sensibilities on my next flight? What happens if I have bad gas, and let a fart or two go, and it offends the lady next to me? Can she have me arrested under the Patriot Act? What if I'm listening to my Ipod, with my headphones on, and she just doesn't like that tinny little buzz-buzz that escapes? What if she doesn't like my cologne, or is offended by the fact that I'm wearing sneakers that look to her as if they were made by child labor in Myanmar? What if she doesn't like my moustache?

What if I want to read the Playboy magazine that I've brought aboard? I'm not ogling the photos or holding them up to corrupt the young and infirm. I'm just reading the fiction, or the interview, or the jokes, maybe even the Playboy advisor and its ideas on various sexual and non-sexual issues, the movie and music reviews. And someone wants me to put it down because they don't like what they're seeing? (For anyone who's read the magazine in the last couple of years, this is getting to be a more and more common occurrence.) The FA is asked to intervene because Neighbor X doesn't like Playboy or FHM or Stuff or Model Railroader or whatever it is that I'm doing that this person can make an issue out of in order to get more attention focused on themself, and asks me to put it away.

Now, I'm no screaming anarchist who wants to torch the Constitution, abolish taxes and stoplights, but then again I'll be goddamned if someone will tell me I am not allowed to peacefully read (text only, mind you, no pictures) something, be it Gone With the Wind, The Origin of The Species, Mein Kampf, Playboy, or L. Ron Hubbard's ridiculous screeds on global conspiracies and the ZOG. It's never happened to me, yet, and I'm not out for confrontation, but sitting here right now I think my answer to the FA would be a polite and respectful "I'm sorry, ma'am, but no." Reading a magazine, reading anything, regardless of its content is not a threat to anyone. A nuisance to one's sensibilities, sure, especially if the nosy matron sitting behind me is headed to her celibate Southern Baptist convention and she just can't stand the thought of a man reading articles or fiction that might have sexual content. But I'm sorry, she's got no right whatsoever to interrupt that.

For me, I could find reading the Bible or any other text of an organized religion to be just as offensive, in that I consider it all to be a series of ridiculous myths propagated as historical fact, and deceptive indoctrination into a false series of beliefs that promise something that can never be delivered. But that's just me. If you want to read it, have at it; it has nothing to do with me, and it's none of my business.

I would not be threatening or disrespectful to the FA, who after all is only doing his/her job. I would not raise my voice or get into any argument at all, just continue to politely refuse such an order. And if it went from there, I'd be happy to have those cuffs slapped on me, happy to get my mug shot taken and to appear in court with any numbmer of attorneys who'd be happy to take a case of a peaceful and unintimdating man denied his First Amendment right by people who believe it's their right to do so.

And it's not that big a leap to see that there are elements of this in how our government is treating us every day. Wake up, pay attention, and see where things are headed.

No Talking Jesus for Needy Tots

Toys for Tots Rejects Jesus Doll
14 Nov 06



A talking Jesus doll has been turned down by the Marine Reserves' Toys for Tots program. A suburban Los Angeles company offered to donate 4,000 of the foot-tall dolls, which quote Bible verses, for distribution to needy children this holiday season. The battery-powered Jesus is one of several dolls manufactured by one2believe, a division of the Valencia-based Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co., based on Biblical figures.

Check out the company at http://www.one2believe.com/.

But the charity balked because of the dolls' religious nature.

Amazing. The military is one of the most conservative institutions in American society, and the US Marine Corps is probably the most conservative among the uniformed services, so for Toys for Tots to actually step up and make this decision is unbelievably informed, tolerant, and wise. I would've expected this decision later, after an initial approval, and after a long and public struggle over what toys should be accepted for redistribution and which should not.

I applaud Toys for Tots for this surprisingly respectful and thoughtful decision.

Toys are donated to kids based on financial need and "we don't know anything about their background, their religious affiliations," said Bill Grein, vice president of Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, in Quantico, VA.

As a government entity, Marines "don't profess one religion over another," Grein said Tuesday. "We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish family or a Muslim family."

Or a Rastafarian family, or agnostic or atheist, for that matter.


Matador Jesus.

Michael La Roe, director of business development for both (doll) companies, said the charity's decision left him "surprised and disappointed."

The cynic in me has this guy disappointed in that he can't seed 4,000 homes with little Jesuses, endlessly yammering away their happy AAA-powered Christian message, so LaRoe can sleep warm and snug at night telling himself and God Above that he is out there on the front lines fighting secularism and competing religions.

"The idea was for them to be three-dimensional teaching tools for kids," La Roe said. "I believe as a churchgoing person, anyone can benefit from hearing the words of the Bible."

Ah, now we get a lot more closer to the real motivation. So, the toys are not just a donation for children who can't get toys. It's not really about toys for tots, then. What LaRoe is saying is that he was hoping the kids would listen to and learn from the Jesus-doll messages. The jump to learning about, or wanting to learn more about the Christian way of life is not that big a one to follow, is it?

According to the company's Web site, the button-activated, bearded Jesus, dressed in hand-sewn cloth outfits and sandals, recites Scripture such as "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." It has a $20 retail value.

Hey, I'm all for positive, family-themed, peace-loving messages of mutual respect and assistance, like the "love your neighbor bit." You can't go wrong with that kind of advice, and it's just the kind of thing I teach in my atheist home: respect for others. But the first statement, the kingdom of God bit, sorry, Mister LaRoe, but that's nothing but pure, unadulterated Christian proselytization. A child hears his doll say this and has only two reactions, curiosity or fear.

The curious child wants to know more about the kingdom of God, so will start asking questions about it, the clear endstate question being, "Well, then, Talking Jesus, how do I get into this kingdom of God you speak of?" That's the desired path to the Bible, church, baptism, the whole nonexistent, hollow, controlling package.

The other reaction, fear, is the one that comes about from a child who knows she is not a Christian, and that the kingdom of God is not meant for her. Nothing like inducing a conversion, or at the very least calling into question the basis of another faith, by pandering to an emotion like fear. A child will want to get into the kingdom, and may just start herself down that path if you tell her she can't have it, that she won't get it unless something fundamental changes. And it's all about fundamentalism, right, LaRoe?


That's World Wrestling Action and/or Angry/Vengeful/Wrathful Jesus, by the way.

Grein also questioned whether children would welcome a gift designed for religious instruction. "Kids want a gift for the holiday season that is fun," he said.

Exactly! A million praises upon your head, Bill Grein, for speaking the plainest of plain truth. This program is about toys--toys!--not about instruction, about learning, and especially not about secular instruction. Once again I commend Toys for Tots for speaking clearly and truthfully. Grein probably will be vilified for speaking so directly, but he's spot-on.

Sorry, but unless Jesus transforms into a race car, or unless he flies around or explodes or shoots foam missiles out of his eyes and arms, or unless he's got gooey green snot dripping from him and attacks other toys, and unless you can do up his hair and make him up and wash him off, or unless he wets himself and burps over and over and over, closing his eyes as you lay him down in his little pink blanket with the Barbies and other dollies, what kid is going to want to play with him? Talking Jesus may make you and the other adults feel great about your good, good work on behalf of The Church, but kids don't care about that. I mean, c'mon, really, what kid wants to come down on Christmas morning--yeah, I know it's all about the birth of Jesus n' all--and not find a basketball or video game or bicycle or board game or race car or a real doll or an MP3 player or a cell phone, any other toy, and instead find a foot-tall Jesus who tells you to honor your parents and not covet things you don't have? Honestly.

The program distributed 18 million stuffed animals, games, toy trucks and other gifts to children in 2005.

Good on ya, Devil Dogs, active and Reserve, current and former/retired, young and old, and Toys for Tots too, both for this decision, and for all of the really, really good work you've done for decades, and continue to do.

Borat's Unflinching, Shining Beam of Truth

First, this little bit of delightful context:

---------------------------------------------
Now Romanians Say 'Borat' Misled Them
14 Nov 06
William Kole, AP Writer
Glod, Romania

The name of this remote Romanian village means "mud," and that's exactly what angry locals are throwing at comedian Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohen used Glod's Gypsies as stand-ins for Kazakhs in his runaway hit movie, "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan." Now offended villagers are threatening to sue the film's producers for paying them a pittance to put farm animals in their homes and perform other crude antics.

Residents and local officials in the hardscrabble hamlet 85 miles northwest of Bucharest said Tuesday they were horrified and humiliated to learn their abject poverty and simple ways were ridiculed for a movie now raking in millions at box offices worldwide.

"We thought they came here to help us _ not mock us," said Dana Luca, 40, sweeping a manure-stained street lined with shabby homes of crumbling brick and corrugated iron sheeting.

"We haven't got anything here. We haven't got running water. We can't even bathe," she said. "We are poor people, but we are still people."

Nicolae Staicu, leader of the 1,670 Gypsies, or Roma, who eke out a living in one of the most impoverished corners of Romania, said he and other officials would meet with a public ombudsman on Wednesday to map out a legal strategy against Cohen and "Borat" distributor 20th Century Fox.

Staicu accused the producers of paying locals just $3.30-$5.50, misleading the village into thinking the movie would be a documentary, refusing to sign proper filming contracts and enticing easily exploited peasants into performing crass acts.

Only five villagers have jobs at a nearby sanatorium and a stone quarry, Staicu said. The rest weave baskets, grow apples, pears and plums, gather mushrooms in the dense Carpathian Mountain forests rising above the town, or raise a few scrawny chickens.

With no gas heating or indoor plumbing, most keep warm with wood stoves and drink from wells. Horse-drawn carts far outnumber automobiles on unpaved, badly potholed roads, and mangy stray dogs growl and snap at strangers. Acrid fires smolder in trash piles on the outskirts of the village, and children _ their clothing worn and torn _ play in yards littered with stumps, scrap metal and other bric-a- brac.

"These people are poor and they were tricked by people more intelligent than us," he said. "They took one of our 75-year-old ladies, put huge silicone breasts on her and said she was 47. Another man they filmed to look like the poorest person in the world, and one of our men who is missing an arm had a plastic sex toy taped to his stump."

"We are suing because they were not truthful," added Staicu, who said he saw parts of "Borat" and was disgusted.

"They did not film reality," he said. "We've really had enough of this."

Neither Cohen's agent in London nor 20th Century Fox's offices in Los Angeles immediately returned phone messages Tuesday from The Associated Press.

The mood in Glod, meanwhile, was tense and volatile, with crowds of angry, shouting villagers repeatedly gathering around reporters.

One man was seen slapping his sister, who had appeared in the film, and slamming the gate to his ramshackle home shut to keep her from being interviewed. At another point, a resident threatened news photographers with a stick, and another pelted their car with rocks.

People in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, where the mustachioed Cohen's character hails from as a TV journalist on an adventure across America, also have decried how they are depicted in the film, whose opening scenes were shot in Glod.

Two members of a fraternity at a South Carolina university who appear making drunken, insulting comments about women and minorities also are suing 20th Century Fox and three production companies, claiming the crew liquored them up in a bar before filming and told them the movie would not be shown in the United States.

Not everyone in Glod is upset. Sorina Luca, 25, excitedly described how she was given $3.30 to bring a pig into her home and let the producers put a toy rifle into the hands of her 5-year-old daughter for one scene.

"I really liked it," she said. "We are poor and miserable. Nothing ever happens here."

But a 23-year-old woman who gave her name only as Irina said she felt bewildered and dismayed that Glod's poverty was reduced to a parody.

The smash success of "Borat," she said, just rubbed salt in Glod's collective wounds.

The film remained the No. 1 weekend draw at U.S. movie theaters for a second week, grossing $28.3 million, according to the latest figures released Monday.

"They made us put a cow in our living room, and they made it defecate and urinate in the house. Everyone's angry because they didn't pay them the way they should have," she said.

"They're making a lot of money _ but they've made us a laughing stock."
-----------------------------

So what exactly are these Romanian peasants so angry about? Why are they so angry at being portrayed as themselves? Is it that Cohen portrayed them exactly as they are, uneducated, uncouth, backwards and uneducated peasants in ragged clothing, living in filth and decay? Read this story, especially about the manure in the streets, and the guy assaulting his sister, the trash and garbage fires, and it's pretty clear that Cohen simply filmed these 21st century serfs being exactly who they are.

Yeah, they're poor, and that most likely isn't their fault, at least as a collective group. But there is such a thing as personal fortitude, self respect, and the ability to say no to some guy who comes in and asks you do and say things that you don't agree with. If you say something you don't agree with for money, you're a whore. If you do something you don't really want to do for money, hey, again you're a whore. And all manner of noise doesn't take away the fact that you said/did it.

Hey, they got paid, right? What, did they think they were going to be movie stars? That somehow theire lives were all going to change because of a film crew on hand for a day or two? Yeah, right. I love the part about how they were "made" to put a cow inside their house. No, no one held a gun to them, forced them to do these things--they did it on their own, for whatever perceived benefit might have come. And if it comes across as desperate and idiotic people doing desparate and idiotic things, then Cohen's film really is a lot more documentary than a lot of folks think.

And the dumbass fratboys who are going to sue Cohen and the Fox team for making fools of them? What, they got drunk and yammered on in racist terms and somehow it's not their fault? Hey, college boy, that is you on film, no one else. It's not like they paid someone to use your name and your daily context to put words into your mouth, to portray you unfairly as saying and doing things you didn't do. Taht's slander and libel and defamation of character, clearly illegal. But that's you on the screen, fratboy, getting good and drunk and saying those things. Regardless of the context, you did it and you said it--period. The alcohol and physical context just made you more prone to say what you believe, way down inside.


It's the exact same with Mel Gibson. No, vodka or any other alcohol does not cause one to utter racist or anti-Semitic comments (although my experience is that tequila alters your very DNA), it just gets you drunk enough so that your racism and hatred and fears and all other personal idiot sentiments and beliefs can more easily escape the internal fortress you've built to protect your public image. That's what happened there, and Gibson and his apologizers are liars for saying anything different. He didn't rant on about Jews and evil and all of that other garbage just because he got pulled over for a cop while (allegedly) engaged in the highly illegal and dangerous act of speeding while driving drunk; that dark, angry, latently violent, almost pathological conspiracy belief structure has been there from the beginning (I mean, really, just look at his father).

That was the real Mel Gibson right there, just as it's the real ignorant peasant-gypsies here, and the unfortunately stereotypical dumbass drunken fratboys, too. You are who you are, you did what you did, and you were all foolish enough not to pay attention to the context in which you acted and spoke, the forms that were shown to you and you blithely, ignorantly signed. It's reality, and you are the one who was the fool. Maybe you were duped, but then again, they merely set the stage for you to be yourself, and you are the ones who supplied the content, you fools. In the end, you are the one responsible for your words and actions, and all manner of whining and shrill noise about how you were treated does not erase the fact that you did what you did and said what you did, regardless of your real or imagined motivation.

Pay attention, for Bog's sake, and be careful out there. Life will tear you a new one if you're not paying attention.